Mr Hoffman this is my response AND my final posting on this website. We should all know that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder, nor should there be. I have stated and restated in my last two postings that this is NOT ABOUT THE DAMN COURT JUDGMENT! It is about setting precedent FOR THE BETTER by way of appellate case law! By way of analogy to murder I do maintain and I do contend that there should also be no time limit to challenge unjust statutes (especially labor law statutes) and have them refined, modified, and even struck down as unconstitutional (be it U.S. Constitution or a state's constitution). Furthermore there are other legal theories that should be proposed AND recognized by the courts. Much of your last posting was about "finality" and time limits. I am more concerned with justice. Good day sir, its been a pleasure.
1 Answer from Attorneys
[A note to other readers: This user has posted several related questions in the past 24 hours. His latest question builds on what came before. You can see the prior questions and answers at http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/calif-appellate-judges-affirm-trial-389914368/, http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/past-small-claims-court-municipal-307581789/, http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-general-civil-litigation/-sued-small-claims-court-377144058/, http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/mr-anthony-roach-esq-correct-243397054/, and http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/california-appeals-writs/mr-hoffman-esq-respect-reply-785236324/.]
You seem to think time limits and justice are two distinct concepts. They are not. Our legal system imposes time limits because, in most circumstances, it would be unjust not to.
Imagine if you had won your case and the other side was still trying to litigate it 20 years later. You would understand then the injustice of letting people keep dragging their adversaries back into court over a case that was decided long ago.
I'm sorry you don't understand the concept now. But the rules apply the same way to people who understand them as to those who don't. Disagreeing with me will not change the rules, and it will not get you the outcome you want.
Bear in mind that there are consequences for hauling someone into court without legal basis. Depending on what you do, you could be sued for abuse of process. You could be sanctioned. You could be deemed a vexatious litigant. Since you aren't going to win, you should at least take these risks into account when you decide what to do.
Related Questions & Answers
Mr. Hoffman Esq. I respect you and I respect your reply. I also respectfully beg to... Asked 9/02/13, 2:29 pm in United States California Appeals and Writs
Mr. Anthony Roach Esq. was a little more correct in answering a question I asked... Asked 9/02/13, 10:11 am in United States California Appeals and Writs
In the past there was a small claims court, municipal court, and superior court per... Asked 9/01/13, 9:20 pm in United States California Appeals and Writs
In Calif. how many appellate judges does it take to AFFIRM a trial courts judgement... Asked 9/01/13, 4:20 pm in United States California Appeals and Writs
In a dependency proceeding which is quasi criminal in nature, (1) Can I apply the... Asked 8/15/13, 4:54 am in United States California Appeals and Writs